Pennsylvania law is well settled on the relevancy of surveillance videos and them being subject to discovery. What is not so clear is when the surveillance must be disclosed or produced. It is important to note that both the disclosing and producing of the surveillance are two separate events. The defense does not have to produce surveillance videos at the same time that they disclose their existence; thus, the question becomes when must the two events take place?
In addressing this matter, Pennsylvania Court’s strive to strike a balance. As stated in the PA Surveillance Compendium, “Pennsylvania Courts have recognized the competing interests at play when it comes to the issue of video surveillance—for Plaintiffs, it is securing a trial free from surprise, and for Defendants, it is the potential to expose fraud or exaggerated claims of injury.”
“Under the law today, you do not need to disclose the existence of surveillance footage until (1) the Plaintiff requests video surveillance in discovery, and (2) the deposition of the surveilled individual is taken. Morganti v. Ace Tire & Parts, Inc., 70 Pa. D. & C. 4th 1 (Common Pleas 2004) (Wettick, J.). You may wait until after Plaintiff has been deposed to disclose the existence of the surveillance video to Plaintiff. This is true even if Plaintiff propounds discovery upon Defendant months before his or her deposition is taken and specifically requests Defendant to identify and produce any and all surveillance videos of Plaintiff. This Rule preserves the impeachment value of the surveillance, while giving the Plaintiff time to test the integrity of the impeachment evidence.” Id.
In other words, prior to the plaintiff’s deposition, the defense may hold the surveillance in an attempt to secure contradictory testimony. Afterwards, the defense must produce the surveillance in a timely matter.
Other great related sources of information:
It’s 10:00pm the night before my first binding ADR. I am extremely nervous and anxious, but everything is coming together. My major points are outlined in detail, and with a little luck a defense verdict is attenable. While my client has exposure, there is a high-low agreement in place so our damage is capped. Who wants to lose small when they can win big? I open our electronic filing system to print a few pictures to show the minor damage to plaintiff’s vehicle as a result of the accident. And then I see, “Plaintiff’s Medical Records.” But wait, this is new. I open the document and begin to browse. Right away, I spot records from 2012, but we’ve had an ADR agreement in place since 2010, what are these new records? I continue to peruse. I see a three-day hospital stay in 2012, and then the words that forever changed my night, “lumbar laminectomy surgery in 2014.” My mouth dropped. The entire case has changed.
We have an Independent Medical Examination (IME) from 2009. There was an initial delay in agreeing on the arbitrator, followed by plaintiff counsel’s numerous continuance requests, but no mention of any additional treatment or surgery. This was Civ Pro Ambush 101, and I was in the middle of a full onslaught attack.